League of Oregon Cities - Takings

League of Oregon Cities

"To strengthen and support livable communities"

Search

This Site

A - Z Index

Site Help

ABOUT THE LEAGUE

LEAGUE SERVICES

CITY RESOURCES

LEGISLATIVE
HOMETOWN VOICES

Home >> Current Issues >> Takings >> Takings - Litigation

Takings - Litigation
Measure 7 Declared Invalid by Oregon Supreme Court
MCCALL, LOC et al v. STATE OF OREGON

• The Oregon Supreme Court's decision on McCall, LOC et al v. State of Oregon.

• LOC's article on the decision covers the Supreme Court's decision, background information,as well as future plans of Measure 7 proponents'.

• Briefs to the Supreme Court in the Measure 7 appeal:

State of Oregon
Respondents - McCall, MacPherson, Swaim, Lewis, and Tipperman
Respondents LOC - The cities of Beaverton, Eugene, Junction City, Portland, and Veneta; Benton, Multnomah and Washington counties; Bev Stein and Vera Katz
Reply brief of the State of Oregon

• Marion County Circuit Court Decision decision on McCall/League of Oregon Cities et al v. State of Oregon(2/22/01) declaring Measure 7 void.

1000 FRIENDS COST BILL

• LUBA opinion on 1000 Friends vs. Deschutes County. This case was used to decide the other cases against Oregon cities and counties. Click here to view each individual LUBA decision.

• Objections to the 1000 Friends' cost bill from Lincoln City and Hood River.

COMPLAINTS

LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES, et al v. STATE OF OREGON; a suit seeking injunctive relief against Measure 7, filed in Marion County Circuit Court.

Text of complaint in McCall v. Kitzhaber, a suit seeking to invalidate Measure 7, filed in Marion County Circuit Court.

OTHER LITIGATION

The United States Supreme Court decision (June 28, 2001) of Palazzolo v. Rhode Island et al concerning a takings case in Rhode Island. An analysis of this case is included in Palazzolo and Takings: Quo Vadis? by Peter Livingston.

The Oregon Court of Appeals issued a decision (11/22/00) in the case of Swett v. Keisling, which dealt with the constitutionality of 1998's Measure 62 based on the "single subject rule". This case may have ramifications for future action on Measure 7. Other cases referenced in the decision are Armatta v. Kitzhaber (1998) and Dale v. Keisling (2000).